Viral Environmental Warfare: Technology Bill of Rights Critically Needed

The ongoing “hidden in plain sight” geoengineering operations including the pervasive, near global spraying of ultrafine particles into the troposphere pose an existential risk to the biosphere and humanity. Likewise, bioengineering and genetic manipulation of potential pandemic pathogens with associated accidental or deliberate release represents a dire risk to the modern world. Compelling evidence to date indicates that the chimeric structure and added furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 was the result of human manipulation in the laboratory. Coronavirus and vaccine patents indicate a foreknowledge of the COVID-19 pandemic, which conveniently serves the interests of the global elites. The new COVID-19 vaccines, hailed as the answer to the pandemic, have potential toxicity, fail to prevent transmission, drive the development of new variants, and over time may predispose recipients to antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of infection. Other important technological threats include Internet-based censorship, nano-particulate pollution, electro-pollution and the massive amounts of electromagnetic energy inflicted on humans and Earth’s natural environment. A Technology Bill of Rights is critically needed to protect humanity and salvage what remains of earth’s life support systems.

How Does Artificial Intelligence Pose an Existential Risk?

Alan Turing, one of the fathers of computing, warned that artificial intelligence (AI) could one day pose an existential risk to humanity. Today, recent advancements in the field of AI have been accompanied by a renewed set of existential warnings. But what exactly constitutes an existential risk? And how exactly does AI pose such a threat? In this chapter, we aim to answer these questions. In particular, we will critically explore three commonly cited reasons for thinking that AI poses an existential threat to humanity: the control problem, the possibility of global disruption from an AI race dynamic, and the weaponization of AI.

Does the Sustainability of the Anthropocene Technosphere Imply an Existential Risk for Our Species? Thinking with Peter Haff

Throughout the 20th century, several thinkers noticed that Technology was becoming a global phenomenon. More recently, US geologist Peter Haff claimed that a Technosphere is now in place and can be conceived as a new Earth geological system. This unprecedented situation is creating enormous challenges not only for our species, since more and more of its members are now dependent on the subsistence of this man-made sphere, but also for other species and natural ecosystems that have become increasingly dependent on it. Perhaps the most crucial of these challenges is the sustainability of the Technosphere itself. In the first part of the article, I attempted a critical reconstruction of Haff’s Technosphere concept. The second part is dedicated to analyzing how the unsustainability of the Technosphere represents a global catastrophic risk and ultimately an existential risk.

The existential stakes of platform governance: a critical literature review

This study introduces a comprehensive overview of literature concerning the concepts of regulation and governance, and attempts to connect them to scholarly works that deal with the governance of and by social media platforms. The paper provides fundamental definitions of regulation and governance, along with a critique of polycentricity or multi-stakeholderism, in order to contextualise the discussion around platform governance and, subsequently, online content regulation. Moreover, where traditional governance literature conceptualised stakeholders as a triangle, this article proposes going beyond the triad of public, private and non-governmental actors, to account for previously invisible stakeholder clusters, like citizens and news media organisations. This paper also contends that, while platform governance is an important field of study and practice, the way it has been structured and investigated so far, is posing an existential risk to the broader internet governance structure, primarily, because of the danger of conflating the internet with platforms. As a result, there exists a timely need to reimagine the way in which we understand and study phenomena related to platform governance by adjusting our conceptual and analytical heuristics. So, this article wishes to expand the theorisation of this field in order to better engage with complicated platform governance issues, like the development of regulatory frameworks concerning online content regulation.

Hong Kong as special cultural zone: Confucian geopolitics in practice

Responding to An, Sharp, and Shaw’s article, ‘Towards Confucian Geopolitics’, I consider how strategies and interpretations of Chinese geopolitics are playing out in Hong Kong with attention to their cultural dimensions. First, I reflect upon the reactions of individuals and the media in the West—specifically Britain—to the protests and street violence that rocked its former colony in the summer of 2019. Second, to reckon with An, Sharp, and Shaw’s contention that the hybridized nature of Chinese geopolitics emerges from its ‘strategic adaptability’, thereby enabling the integration of foreign ideas into Chinese cultural traditions, I offer a brief critique of cultural and infrastructural developments in Hong Kong relating to the West Kowloon Cultural District. Initially intended to showcase local culture and link it into the art world’s global circuits, the megaproject is increasingly being made in China’s image. Third, as a counterpoint to the supposed flexibility of the Chinese geopolitical imagination, I address the ossification of Western geopolitical thought and practice. In order for geographers to build more pluralistic critical geopolitics, engaging with a diversity of geopolitical approaches and their cultural underpinnings is key. For Western nation-states, failing to practice a more hybridized geopolitics may represent a more existential risk.